Paul Roe Department of International Relations ‘Critical Security Studies’ (MA: Winter Semester, 2019-20) This course is concerned with how the so-called ‘critical turn’ in International Relations has been reflected specifically in thinking about Strategy and Security. ‘Critical Security Studies’ is, in its broadest sense, a collection of approaches all united by a profound dissatisfaction with so-called ‘traditional’ security studies. Critical Security Studies seeks to question, though not always completely do away with, the foundations upon which the dominant state-centrism and military-centrism is built. This course deals with a number of these approaches: from the ‘conventional’ constructivists, through the ‘Copenhagen’ and ‘Aberystwyth’, or ‘Welsh’, Schools, to more ‘critical’ constructivist positions. In doing so, not only does it seek to illuminate the main theoretical assumptions underpinning each of the various approaches, but also to explore just how they are ‘critical’; that is, in what ways they challenge traditional security studies, and in what ways they compare and contrast with each other. While the course is mainly theoretical in its orientation, much emphasis is also placed on empirical application; how, and to what kind of cases, each of the approaches can be profitably applied. Teaching Method For this course, there are no lectures. Instead, students will participate in seminars where they are expected to form their own opinions through ‘critical’ evaluation of the readings. For each seminar, there will be one or two key texts (which are in the course reader). Seminar discussion will be structured around a short presentation of the text(s), in which students will summarise and critically evaluate the readings. Seminar discussion therefore depends on serious preparation: it is crucial that students do all of the reading required and come into the seminar fully prepared to actively take part in the discussion. For the topics discussed, there is not necessarily a right answer. What is important is to focus on the way that people think. Method of Assessment Each student will be assessed through a combination of seminar contribution, oral presentation, and written work. There will be one oral, in-class presentation (20% of the final grade). In addition, two written pieces of work are required; one Literature Review (30%) (see guidelines, below), and one Research Paper (40%) (the requirements for which will be discussed in class). The final 10% of the grade is given to seminar attendance and contribution. The length of the Literature Review is 2,500 words (+/-10%). While the Research Paper will be 4,500 words (+/-10%). The Literature Review is due at the end of week 7. The deadline for the Research Paper will be established sometime during the second half of the semester. The oral presentation and the Literature Review should be based on different key texts. The Research Paper, however, may be written on the same subject matter as the Literature Review. Guidelines for the Literature Review The purpose of the literature review is essentially two-fold: one, to situate the chosen key text within the wider debate(s); and two, to make a critique of the key text informed by the existing literature. Any text can be situated in a wider debate: its theoretical/conceptual standpoint and the more specific arguments that derive from that standpoint can only be properly understood when set against other works. Together, these texts collectively constitute a written conversation. Some texts may exemplify a particular debate; others might be read as belonging to several, overlapping written conversations. The literature review thus demands that students not only identify the general context within which the key text can be situated, but are also explicit as to the specific nature of the debate according to which they will structure their critique. In terms of structure, one or two introductory paragraphs should be devoted to the above task (context and debate). Following on from this, the main body should then put in place a coherent and sustained, critical evaluation of the key text. Some concluding paragraph is also warranted, although the exact content of that paragraph is dependent on the purpose of the critique. The main points of the critical evaluation should derive explicitly from the wider literature. Given the length of the literature review; just 2,500 words, it is reasonable to expect that no more than 4-5 other works are utilized, likewise informing no more than just a couple of related critical points. Week 1/Seminar 1. Introduction Week 1/Seminar 2. No Class Week 2/Seminar 3. Third Generation Strategic Culture: Global Norms Key Text: Nina Tannenwald, ‘Stigmatizing the Bomb: Origins of the Nuclear Taboo’, International Security, vol.29, no.4, 2005. Week 2/Seminar 4. Third Generation Strategic Culture: Institutional Culture Key Text: Andrew Bell, ‘Military Culture and Restraint Towards Civilians in War: Examining the Ugandan Civil Wars’, Security Studies, vol.25, no.3, 2016. Further Reading for 2/3 & 2/4: Theo Farrell, ‘Non-Nuclear Use: Constructing a Cold War History’; Lynn Eden, ‘The Contingent Taboo’; Carol Atkinson, ‘Using Nuclear Weapons’; T.V. Paul, ‘Taboo or Tradition?...’; William Walker, ‘The Absence of a Taboo on the Possession of Nuclear Weapons’, Review of International Studies, vol.36, no.4, 2010. Jeffrey Legro, ‘Military Culture and Inadvertent Escalation in World War II’, International Security, vol.18, no.4, 1994. Tannenwald, The Nuclear Taboo: The U.S. and the Non-Use of Weapons Since 1945 (Cambridge: CUP, 2007). Peter Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), Chapter 4: Richard Price & Tannenwald, ‘Norms and Deterrence: The Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Taboos’; Chapter 6: Elizabeth Kier, ‘Culture and French Military Doctrine Before World War II’; Chapter 7: Alistair Iain Johnston, ‘Cultural Realism and Strategy in Maoist China’. Theo Farrell & Helene Lambert, ‘Courting Controversy: International Law, National Norms and American Nuclear Use’, Review of International Studies, vol.27, no.3, 2001. Farrell, ‘Transnational Norms and Military Development: Constructing Ireland’s Professional Army’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.7, no.1, 2001. Farrell, ‘World Culture and Military Power’, Security Studies, vol.14, no.3, 2005. Emily Goldman, ‘Cultural Foundations of Military Diffusion’, Review of International Studies, vol.32, no.1, 2006. Edward Lock, ‘Refining Strategic Culture: Return of the Second Generation’, Review of International Studies, vol.36, no.3, 2010 Week 3/Seminar 5. No Class Week 3/Seminar 6. Societal Security Key Text: Ole Waever et al., Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe (London: Pinter, 1993), Chapter 2: Waever, ‘Societal Security: The Concept’. Further Reading: Waever et al., Identity, Migration, Chapter 3: Buzan, ‘Societal Security, State Security and Internationalisation’. Bill McSweeney, ‘Identity and Security: Buzan and the Copenhagen School’, Review of International Studies, vol.22, no.1, 1996. Buzan & Waever, ‘Slippery? Contradictory? Sociologically Untenable? The Copenhagen School Replies’, Review of International Studies, vol.23, no.2, 1997. Jef Huysmans, ‘Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative Development of a Security Studies Agenda’, European journal of International Relations, vol.4, no.4, 1998. Tobias Theiler, ‘Societal Security and Social Psychology’, Review of International Studies, vol.29, no.2, 2003. Collins (ed.), Contemporary Security Studies, Chapter 10: Roe, ‘Societal Security’. Week 4/Seminar 7. Security and Contestation: Identity and Symbolic Power Key Text: Ronald Krebs & Jennifer Lobasz, ‘Fixing the Meaning of 9/11: Hegemony, Coercion and the Road to War in Iraq, Security Studies, vol.16, no.3, 2007. Further Reading: Krebs & Patrick Jackson, ‘Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.13, no.1, 2007. Janice Bially Mattern, ‘The Power Politics of Identity’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.7, no.3, 2001. Jane Cramer, ‘Militarized Patriotisms: Why the U.S. Place of Ideas Failed Before the Iraq War’, Security Studies, vol.16, no.3, 2007. A. Trevor Thrall, ‘A Bear in the Woods? Threat Framing and the Market Place of Ideas’, Security Studies, vol.16, no.3, 2007. Jack Holland, ‘‘When You Think of the Taliban, Think of the Nazis’: Teaching Americans ‘9/11’ in NBC’s The West Wing’, Millennium, vol.40, no.1, 2011. Richard Jackson, Writing the War on Terrorism (Manchester: MUP, 2005). Michael Williams, Culture and Security: Symbolic Power and the Politics of International Security (London: Routledge, 2007). Week 4/Seminar 8. ‘Second Generation’ Securitization Key Text: Thierry Balzacq, ‘The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.11, no.2, 2005. Further Reading: Adam Cote, ‘Agents Without Agency: Assessing the Role of Audience in Securitization Theory’, Security Dialogue, vol.47, no.6, 2016. Balzacq, Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve (London: Routledge, 2011). Matt McDonald, ‘Securitization and the Construction of Security’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.14, no.4, 2008. Holger Stritzel, ‘Towards a Theory of Securitization: Copenhagen and Beyond’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.13, no.3, 2007. Stritzel, ‘Security, the Translation’,